Revision number on Guides ?

[cesgon]

I was translating from a outdated PDF I had and noticed it that still had Mt gox as exchange. Now I see that has been updated. Could be good Idea to insert a revision number once is converted into PDF.

(I know I should have find the most up to date guide)

But something to keep in mind.

[mdhaze]

Best would be to eliminate ALL REFERENCES to exchanges and commercial
companies from documents produced. Mainly, this is so in one or two years
these documents are not obsolete - has nothing to do with 'companies we
love today!'

And caution users against the next MtGox.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Cesar [email protected] wrote:

I was translating from a outdated PDF I had and noticed it that still had
Mt gox as exchange. Now I see that has been updated. Could be good Idea to
insert a revision number once is converted into PDF.

(I know I should have find the most up to date guide)

But something to keep in mind.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/9
.

[ABISprotocol]

@cesgon @mdhaze If you look back into the revisions from the early versions of the (ugh) google doc versions of these guides, before the content made it to github, you can find many contributions and warnings in certain of the google docs including the purchasing, and other, about reliance or overreliance upon website-based exchanges that are essentially centralized. There was also prominent reference to (and introduction of) the 'Crypto Risk Capital' concept, but that contribution to the guides was apparently removed in some version of the google docs iteration at the time when the docs were being reduced in length and pared down... You can find some detailed information on the Crypto Risk Capital concept by searching for the term in the forum at https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/

Also, I agree that deleting the references to particular exchange companies (or at least updating them for relevance) is a great idea, and easy for someone to do who is not familiar with github, too. And yes to revision numbers - but who will version them when in terms of noting when there has been a significant change (whether as a result of an individual commit or many little modifications/tinycommits)? It may not matter if they are being updated more or less constantly. But it does sound like a good idea to do periodically.

[mdhaze]

ABIS - we agree it's best from the lazy point of view to delete company
names.

RE your other comments, "look back you will see many warnings" I am not
certain what you are trying to say. Warnings can be enlightening, or plain
stupid, or silly. Generally, warnings do not influence behavior as
intended.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, ABIS [email protected] wrote:

@cesgon https://github.com/cesgon @mdhaze https://github.com/mdhazeIf you look back into the revisions from the early versions of the (ugh)
google doc versions of these guides, before the content made it to github,
you can find many contributions and warnings in certain of the google docs
including the purchasing, and other, about reliance or overreliance upon
website-based exchanges that are essentially centralized. There was also
prominent reference to (and introduction of) the 'Crypto Risk Capital'
concept, but that contribution to the guides was apparently removed in some
version of the google docs iteration at the time when the docs were being
reduced in length and pared down... You can find some detailed information
on the Crypto Risk Capital concept by searching for the term in the forum
at https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/

Also, I agree that deleting the references to particular exchange
companies (or at least updating them for relevance) is a great idea, and
easy for someone to do who is not familiar with github, too. And yes to
revision numbers - but who will version them when in terms of noting when
there has been a significant change (whether as a result of an individual
commit or many little modifications/tinycommits)? It may not matter if they
are being updated more or less constantly. But it does sound like a good
idea to do periodically.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/9#issuecomment-40899494
.

[mdhaze]

Thank you for bringing up the concept of "crypto risk capital". I examined
the threads, and don't feel it is a useful concept. Without clarification
of who owns private keys, and who knows of the private key, a user of an
exchange cannot evaluate risk, and if he cannot, no risk based conceptuals
can be useful.

The essential concept to imprint on the user is whether he owns bitcoins or
he owns a promise from someone to pay him bitcoins (eg a wallet service
with pooled assets). The latter case isn't even "crypto risk capital" but
standard business risk.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, ABIS [email protected] wrote:

@cesgon https://github.com/cesgon @mdhaze https://github.com/mdhazeIf you look back into the revisions from the early versions of the (ugh)
google doc versions of these guides, before the content made it to github,
you can find many contributions and warnings in certain of the google docs
including the purchasing, and other, about reliance or overreliance upon
website-based exchanges that are essentially centralized. There was also
prominent reference to (and introduction of) the 'Crypto Risk Capital'
concept, but that contribution to the guides was apparently removed in some
version of the google docs iteration at the time when the docs were being
reduced in length and pared down... You can find some detailed information
on the Crypto Risk Capital concept by searching for the term in the forum
at https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/

Also, I agree that deleting the references to particular exchange
companies (or at least updating them for relevance) is a great idea, and
easy for someone to do who is not familiar with github, too. And yes to
revision numbers - but who will version them when in terms of noting when
there has been a significant change (whether as a result of an individual
commit or many little modifications/tinycommits)? It may not matter if they
are being updated more or less constantly. But it does sound like a good
idea to do periodically.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/9#issuecomment-40899494
.

[ABISprotocol]

@mdhaze If you have been on the Ed Committee mailings / list / group, there is a link in the bottom of the mails that have been sent that refers to the guide. That provides some clarification in re. your statement that you were not certain of what I was trying to say and noting that I was referring to contributions and warnings above.

For example, as part of the signature of anything posted to the e-mail list is:

(portion of signature follows)

To read or edit the guides created by the committee, visit http://bit.ly/17j73Fq

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Foundation Education Committee" group.
(...)
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bitcoin-foundation-education-committee.

-Simply put, for reasons of space and paring stuff down not everything made it into the docs before they were migrated to github, but you can look at the revision history in the google docs, which is relevant to both any "contributions and warnings" statement I have made above as well as related to this discussion of revision numbers particularly. Thanks for your thoughts.

[nikosbentenitis]

Message at the end of every email has now been changed to "To contribute to the work done by the committee, visit http://btcfoundationedcom.github.io". I will be closing the Google Docs for editing.